SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION

SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY - BANDURA -------------- we learn aggressive behaviour through: Direct Experience (operant conditioning) or Vicarious Experience (children observe model behaving in particular way & imitate behaviour. from observing model, children learn about nature of aggressive behaviour & consequences
1. Likelihood of person behaving aggressively is determined by: Their past experience of aggressive behaviour; Degree to which aggressive behaviour was successful in past; Likelihood of aggressive behaviour being rewarded/punished
2. Bandura et al aim was to demonstrate 2 effects of observing aggressive models. ‘Teaching’ (where children learn aggressive behaviour) & ‘motivation’ (Likelihood of behaviour being performed). 66 nursery children watched film of adult model behaving aggressively towards ‘bobo doll’ & were divided into 3 conditions:
  1. Condition 1: aggressive model neither awarded nor punished; Condition 2: aggressive model rewarded; Condition 3: aggressive model punished After watching film, children were observed playing with bobo dolls & researchers noted any imitations of behaviour the children saw in film: Children in conditions 1 & 2 showed tendency to commit spontaneous, imitative aggressive acts; Children in condition 2 behaved most aggressively; Children in condition 3 behaved least aggressively
    1. Because children in condition 3 observed aggressive behaviour punished, they weren’t motivated to behave aggressively. However, when researchers offered children sweets, they behaved as aggressively as children in condition 2 suggesting children in condition 3 learnt aggressive behaviours, but weren’t motivated to behave aggressively. - Bobo dolls don’t retaliate when hit raising questions regarding what study tells us about imitation of aggression towards other humans. - Johnston et al found children who behaved most aggressively after observing model were identified by peers & teachers as more violent in general.
3. EVALUATION ------------ Explains inconsistencies in aggressive behaviour. E.g., if person is aggressive at home but submissive at work, they have learnt aggressive behaviour is only appropriate in certain situations. - Wolfgang & Ferracuti’s ‘culture of violence theory’ states some cultures model aggressive behaviour while others don’t. SLT can be used to explain cultural differences in aggression. - Huessman states children often use models from TV as guidelines for behaviour. - SLT doesn’t take into account biological explanations of aggression.
THE DEINDIVIDUATION MODEL ---------- Hogg & Vaughan defined deindividuation as ‘the process where people lose their sense of self identity & engage in antisocial behaviour’. People don’t usually behaviour aggressively, because they’re easily identifiable & belong to societies which have strong norms against aggressive behaviour. However, in situations such as crowds, these restraints may be loosened, so we may engage in what Hogg & Vaughan defined as ‘an orgy of aggressive, selfish & antisocial behaviour’.
1. Zimbardo distinguished between individuated and deindividuated behaviour. - Individuated behaviour is rational & conforms to acceptable standards - Deindividuated behaviour is primitive & doesn’t conform to social norms. Being part of large crowd can reduce individual awareness as people are faceless & anonymous. There’s less fear of retribution & less sense of guilt. The larger the crowd, the greater anonymity, & harder it is to identify an individual. An individual who’s aware of their identity is likely to act according to moral standards. However, if individual becomes submerged in group, they may lose self awareness. Prentic Dunn & Rogers argues that it’s a loss of private self awareness rather than reduced public awareness
2. RESEARCH ------------ - Malumeth & Check found 1/3 of male students at US uni would rape someone if there wasn’t a chance of being identified - Mann analysed 21 American newspaper reports of suicides during 60s & 70s. In 10 cases where crowd was gathered to watch, crowd urged victim to jump. Incidents occurred at night, crowds were large & some distance from victim. Claimed factors had produced deindividuation amongst members of crowd. - Mullen analysed 60 American newspaper reports of lynches between 1899 & 1946, found more people that were in crowd, greater level of savagery that was used to kill the victims - Zimbardo et al recreated prison in Stanford, recruited Ps to play role of ‘prisoners’ (wearing smocks & were referred to by number) and ‘guards’. Anonymity of each group made it easier for guards to behave brutally towards & dehumanise prisoners to extent that study was stopped after 6 days.
  1. CONTINUED ------------- - Watson used data on 23 societies from Human Relations Area Files to test idea that warriors who significantly changed their facial appearance prior to battle were more likely to kill, torture & mutilate their victims than those who didn’t: - Of 13 societies that killed, tortured & mutilated their victims, 12 changed appearance prior to battle - Of 10 societies that were less brutal towards victims, 7 didn’t change appearance - Zimbardo concluded that when we want ‘usually peaceful young men to harm & kill other young men... it’s easier for them to do so if they first change appearance…’ - The Human Relations Act Files contain info from books, articles & studies relating to 400 cultures. Whilst data like this is extremely useful, there may be inconsistencies between different pieces of data.
3. EVALUATION -------------- - Most research links deindividuation to antisocial behaviour, although Diener et al claim there’s evidence that deindividuation can produce prosocial behaviour. - Many researchers have identified Zimbardo’s study as important in showing how people conform to social roles given to them. Behaviour observed in Zimbardo’s study may have been result of Ps conforming to roles rather than result of loss of self identity. - Manstead & Hewstone argue anonymity within group doesn’t affect most real life crowd situations, as members of same group are likely to recognise each other - Deindividuation model states when individual becomes submerged in group, influence of social norms is lost. However, this doesn’t take into account influence of group norms on individual. Manstead & Hewstone claim instead of displaying behaviour that is ‘primitive & doesn’t conform to social norms’, individuals may simply be conforming to norms of group
  1. CONTINUED ------------------ - Deindividuation model could be used to explain football crowd violence, & Man et al found football crowd mobs often consisted of individuals from several different groups, & the mobs were more ritualised than physically aggressive.

Nächster

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION

Beschreibung

Zusammenfassung der Ressource

ähnlicher Inhalt

	Erstellt von melissafrost12 vor mehr als 11 Jahre